Or don't agree to interviews that include algo challenges, leetcode/hackerrank nonsense, array shuffling shenanigans. Choose companies that put thought into their evaluations.
Most of the time the alternative to non-algorithm questions is some form of take home assignment that's usually multiple hours long and that you get no feedback on or chance to correct.
For example, I interviewed with a company where they asked me to design a program to parse some CSV data and I was told in the next round I would pair with an engineer to go over an expansion of the code. The parsing was trivial in Python and I submitted my solution with full unit tests and what seemed sensible to me, but it was as useless of an exercise as asking me algorithm questions because on a job I'm almost always going to adjust my coding style and paradigm to the context and needs of the company.
I commented my code as such to explain that if there were different constraints on the data size or API I would make different design choices than the one I submitted, but it didn't matter - I submitted and received a rejection less than 24 hours later and never got to the next round where I would actually walk through the code with an engineer. It was a complete waste of multiple hours of my time trying to produce thoughtfully designed code - I'd much rather bang out a breadth first search in 45 minutes.
I still prefer take-home exercises because are more realistic and make more sense than timed, algorithmic exercises. But I wish companies would do their cultural fitness thing _before_ having candidates to spend their time on their code challenges.
Was that a good reverse filter for you? For me it wouldn't have been, and I'd have given then the sensible solution in the scope of the interview.